talon  Theological  Seminary, 
N.Y. 


S 


£5? 


Three  Addresses... 
in  Commemoration  of  the 
Pour  Hundredth  Anniversary 
of  the  Reformation 


<$ 


^TOFPfiM^ 


OCT  28 195! 
%OG/GAL  81^ 


BR  301  .U58  R68  1917 

Three  addresses  in 
commemoration  of  the  four 


VOL.  I,  NO.  1 
JANUARY,  I9I  8 


Union  ecological  ^>emtnarp 
bulletin 


THREE  ADDRESSES 

IN  COMMEMORATION  OF  THE 

FOUR  HUNDREDTH  ANNIVERSARY 

OF  THE   REFORMATION 


Published  by 

THE  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 

3041  BROADWAY 

NEW  YORK  CITY 


Application  for  entry  as  second-class  matter  at  the 
Post  Office  at  New  York,  N.  Y.,  pending 

Published  four  times  a  year,  in  November,  January, 
March,  and  May 


I 


Hmon  Ideological  i^emmarp 


THREE   ADDRESSES 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  CHAPEL  OF  THE 

UNION    THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

IN   COMMEMORATION  OF  THE 

FOUR   HUNDREDTH    ANNIVERSARY 

OF  THE    REFORMATION 

Wednesday,  October  31,  191 7 


Broadway  at  120th  Street 
New  York  City 


\J 


CONTENTS 


Pas,c 

Luther  and  the  Catholic  Church 5 

Professor  William  Walker  Rockwell 

Luther  and  Henry  VIII 10 

Professor  Frederick  John  Foakes  Jackson 

Luther  and  the  Unfinished  Reformation       ...      18 
Professor  Arthur  Cushman  McGiffert 


LUTHER  AND  THE  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH 

Four  hundred  years  ago  today  Martin  Luther  began  public 
agitation  for  the  reform  of  the  Latin  Church.  On  the  eve  of 
All  Saints'  Day,  1517,  he  tacked  up  on  a  church  door  in  Witten- 
berg a  long  set  of  propositions  on  which  he  challenged  all  comers 
to  debate.  No  one  took  up  the  challenge,  so  the  debate  never 
came  off.  It  might  have  remained  one  of  those  fizzles  of  which 
academic  history  is  full,  had  not  pirating  publishers  seized  on 
Luther's  utterances  and  scattered  them  broadcast  in  different 
parts  of  Germany  to  the  dismay  of  the  prudent.  They  provoked 
a  controversy  which  attracted  great  attention.  Men  usually  like 
to  watch  a  fight  and  many  of  Luther's  fellow  countrymen  were 
particularly  pleased  to  see  the  thick-set  little  professor  of  Witten- 
berg start  single-handed  to  attack  the  Italian  exploiters  of  the 
German  Church;  for  most  Germans,  and  particularly  the  leading 
merchants  and  bankers,  had  beheld  with  disapproval  many  a  mule 
team  heavily  laden  with  silver  going  across  the  Alps  to  fill  the 
bottomless  coffers  of  the  Pope. 

The  constant  export  of  coin  to  Italy  was  a  handicap  to  trade 
which  the  new  Saxon  silver  mines,  productive  as  they  were,  could 
not  wholly  counterbalance.  This  export  was  connected  with 
transactions  of  a  peculiar  nature,  suspected  by  keen-witted  con- 
temporaries, but  fully  exposed  only  in  recent  years.1  The  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  the  indulgences  which  called  forth  Luther's  criticism 
were  supposed2  to  go  entirely  for  the  construction  of  what  is  still 
the  largest  and  the  most  expensive  church  in  the  world,  St.  Peter's 
in  Rome;  but  actually,  by  a  secret  agreement,3  half  of  the  net 
proceeds  were  to  be  paid  to  a  Hohenzollern  prince,  Albrecht, 
Archbishop  of  Brandenburg-Mainz.  Prior  to  this  deduction,  tin- 
South  German  banking  house  whose  agents  marketed  the  issue 
charged  great  sums  for  expenses. 

Here  in  America  we  have  just  triumphantly  completed  the 
Second  Liberty  Loan,  handsomely  oversubscribed.  Last  Satur- 
day night  our  banks  and  trust  companies,  working  overtime, 

Notes  1  to  5  will  be  found  on  page  27. 

5 


finished  one  of  the  greatest  financial  transactions  of  history. 
For  this  labor  they  did  not  receive  any  commissions  whatever. 
When  the  subscriptions  have  been  paid  in  full,  every  penny 
raised  will  stand  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States.  Contrast  this  clean  transaction  with  the  secret  papal 
diplomacy  of  four  hundred  years  ago,  which  paid  the  heavy  sell- 
ing expenses  of  the  bankers,4  and  then,  for  diplomatic  reasons, 
gave  half  the  net  proceeds  to  a  Hohenzollern  cardinal,  so  that 
out  of  every  three  ducats  raised  scarcely  more  than  one  actually 
helped  build  St.  Peter's. 

Luther  did  not  know  about  this  "ducat  diplomacy"  or  his  pro- 
test at  the  indulgences  hawked  by  Tetzel  might  not  have  taken 
the  form  of  ninety-five  dull  and  cautious  theses.5 

The  dramatic  story  of  Luther's  conflict  with  Rome  is  so  familiar 
as  to  need  but  passing  analysis.  Starting  with  certain  details  in 
regard  to  indulgences,  the  issue  quickly  became  one  of  authority^. 
One  of  the  Pope's  right-hand  men,  Prierias,  Master  of  the  Sacred 
Palace  and  ex-officio  hammer  of  heretics,  commanded  Luther  to 
be  silent;  for  indulgences  had  the  Pope's  approval,  and  whatever 
the  Pope  approved  must  be  right.  Luther  received  other  hints 
to  be  careful  what  he  said,  but  he  declined  to  keep  quiet  about 
what  he  considered  a  great  evil. 

Attempts  were  made  to  force  him  intojsilence  through  gentle 
but  continued  pressure.  He  was  a  professor  of  theology  in  a 
university  founded  but  fifteen  years  previously  with  papal 
authorization.  It  was,  in  fact,  illegal  to  open  a  university  any- 
where without  the  Pope's  consent.  Could  not  the  Pope  then  put 
sufficient  pressure  on  the  university  authorities  to  secure  Luther's 
dismissal?  These  authorities,  however,  were  dominated  by 
Frederick  the  Wise,  the  aged  Elector  of  Saxony,  perhaps  the  most 
widely  respected  of  the  German  princes;  and  the  Pope  could  not 
afford  to  offend  him  just  then.  This  illustrious  duke,  though  con- 
servative by  nature,  felt  that  the  boldest  and  most  brilliant  pro- 
fessor in  his  university  should  be  protected.  To  the  courage  and 
sense  of  fair  play  which  characterized  this  prince  among  laymen 
the  world  owes  the  possibility  of  the  Protestant  Reformation. 

Luther  was  permitted  free  speech  and  freedom  to  print,  and 
his  controversy  went  steadily  on.  Though  the  issues  ramified,  the 
fundamental  question,  so  far  as  Rome  was  concerned,  was  one  of 


authority.  Must  the  Pope  be  believed  and  must  he  be  scrupu- 
lously obeyed?  Or  was  his  power  a  usurpation  based  on  mis- 
understanding of  the  Scriptures  and  developed  through  centuries 
of  error? 

At  the  outset  Luther  was  disinclined  to  push  a  campaign 
against  the  Papacy.  As  late  as  1520  he  addressed  Leo  X  as  a 
righteous  Daniel  amid  the  ravening  lions  of  the  papal  court. 
Here  he  assumes  that  not  the  Pope,  but  his  ministers,  are  to 
blame  for  conditions — an  assumption  very  like  the  axiom  current 
in  constitutional  monarchies:  "The  king  can  do  no  wrong."  But 
this  expression  on  Luther's  lips  appears  to  be  hollow  politeness: 
he  had  suspected  as  early  as  15 18  and  was  quite  convinced  later 
that  the  Pope,  who  claimed  to  be  the  Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth, 
was  really  Antichrist,  the  vicar  not  of  God  but  of  the  devil.  This 
led  him  to  bitter  polemic  which  is  just  as  offensive  to  many 
modern  ears  as  are  his  utterances  on  demoniacal  activity  in  gen- 
eral and  on  witchcraft  in  particular.  His  interpretation  of  the 
Antichrist  passages  in  Daniel  and  in  Thessalonians  are  not  con- 
vincing to  liberal  Protestant  scholars  today;  and  if  his  attack  on 
the  Papacy  had  been  merely  exegetical,  it  would  now  be  as  anti- 
quated as  the  cross-bow.  Of  far  more  interest  are  his  historical 
theories  of  the  rise  of  the  Papacy.  Here,  at  least,  with  all  his 
partial  insight  and  undeniable  prejudice,  he  anticipated  some,  at 
least,  of  the  results  of  modern  scholarship.  To  him  the  Greek 
or  Holy  Orthodox  Church,  which  in  his  time,  as  now,  rejects  the 
papal  supremacy,  is  the  star  witness.  If  the  Greeks  reject  the 
papal  claims,  the  Evangelicals  can  reject  them  also  with  impunity ; 
nay,  they  are  bound  to  do  so. 

Luther  is  not  content  to  reject  the  papal  supremacy;  he  en- 
deavors to  account  for  its  genesis.  He  realizes  that  the  historical 
problem  is  a  very  complex  one  and  that  the  Antichrist-and-devil 
solution  could,  at  best,  be  only  partial.  The  other  causes  which  he 
discovers  may  be  classified  as  indirect  and  direct.  Among  the 
indirect  causes  of  the  rise  of  the  Papacy,  Luther  alleges  the  follow- 
ing: apostasy  from  God's  word  and  from  the  preaching  of  the 
Word,  justification  by  works  and  those  controversies  in  the  Chun,  li 
which  had  led  to  the  rise  of  the  episcopate  and  the  calling  of  coun- 
cils. Then  he  gives  the  direct  reasons,  which  are  either  secular  or 
supernatural.    The  supernatural  reasons  assigned  by  Luther  are 


8 

the  ordinance  of  God,  or  the  divine  anger,  and  especially  the 
activity  of  the  devil.  The  secular  grounds  are  lying,  the  change 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  into  the  Mass,  the  rise  of  a  priestly  caste, 
the  avarice  of  the  inhabitants  of  Rome,  the  influence  of  flatterers, 
the  good  nature  or  the  carelessness  of  princes,  and  the  insolence, 
violent  acts,  and  crafty  legislation  of  the  popes,  who,  when  given 
an  inch,  have  occasionally  taken  an  ell. 

On  antiquated  exegetical  and  on  more  permanently  valid  his- 
torical grounds  Luther  repudiated  the  primacy  of  Rome.  This 
repudiation  cut  him  and  his  followers  off  forever  from  the  Roman 
Church  and  makes  complete  church  unity  in  Western  Europe 
quite  unattainable.  So  long  as  the  decrees  of  the  Vatican  Council 
of  1870  stand,  with  their  insistence  on  papal  sovereignty  over  the 
entire  Church  and  on  papal  infallibility  in  all  matters  of  faith  and 
morals,  reconciliation  is  impossible.  The  protest  made  by  Luther 
has  been  merely  emphasized  by  time;  instead  of  the  Evangelicals 
and  the  Roman  Catholics  drawing  nearer  together  in  point  of 
doctrine  they  have  drawn  further  apart.  If  the  terrible  religious 
wars  of  the  seventeenth  century  showed  Europe  that  religious 
earnestness  easily  degenerates  into  anti-social  fanaticism,  and 
that  toleration  is  the  only  path  of  safety,  the  nineteenth  and  thus 
far  the  twentieth  centuries  have  demonstrated  that  historical 
science  moves  many  events  and  movements  out  of  the  sphere  of 
controversy  into  that  of  comprehension.  Sectarian  bitterness  is 
dying  down  and  both  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  now 
happily  comrades  in  arms  on  all  fields  of  the  Great  War,  may  hope 
at  its  close  to  cooperate,  each  in  their  own  way,  in  the  common 
tasks  which  call  upon  all  who  lay  claim  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

Luther  rejected  the  Papacy;  did  he  thereby  reject  the  Catholic 
Church?  To  this  question  the  adherents  of  the  Pope  must 
answer  yes,  and  we  must  answer  no.  In  a  chapel  where  the 
only  creed  ever  used  solemnly  asserts,  "I  believe  in  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  the  Communion  of  Saints,"  we  can  not  read 
Luther  out  of  that  Church. 

Luther's  conception  of  the  Catholic  Church,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, is  not  that  of  Pusey  or  Newman.  In  fact,  Luther  felt 
that  the  term  Catholic  was  ambiguous,  so  that  in  his  version  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed  he  made  it  read:  "I  believe  in  one  holy 
Christian  Church."     He  did  not  sacrifice  the  Catholic  ideal  of 


unity  but  redefined  it.  For  Luther  the  essential  of  unity  is  agree- 
ment as  to  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments;  a  true  church  is  that 
in  which  the  gospel  is  purely  preached  and  the  sacraments  rightly 
administered.  Neither  the  apostolic  succession  nor  obedience  to 
the  decrees  of  ecumenical- councils  is  necessary;  for  the  bishops 
in  the  Roman  or  High  Anglican  sense  are  not  part  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  primitive  church,  where  every  presbyter  was  a 
bishop.  The  church  is  not  an  autocracy  under  the  Pope,  as 
Thomas  Aquinas  had  believed;  or  an  oligarchy  of  bishops,  as 
Cyprian  had  taught:  but  a  Christian  democracy.  Fundamental 
in  the  constitution  of  the  Church  is  the  priesthood  of  all 
believers:  a  great  democratic  notion.  It  has  been  worked  out  in 
practice  not  so  much  in  the  State  Churches  of  Germany,  subject 
as  these  are  to  the  King  of  Prussia  or  to  other  territorial  rulers, 
but  here  in  the  United  States,  where,  under  a  friendly  separation 
of  Church  and  State,  Luther's  ideal  of  the  Christian  Church  is 
developing  in  freedom  and  with  power. 

Luther  preferred  truth  to  the  external  or  so-called  Catholic 
unity  of  the  visible  Church.  He  believed  that  Christianity  must 
be  first  of  all  and  fundamentally  loyal  to  the  truth;  and  that  by 
such  fidelity  alone  does  unity  become  possible.  The  Union 
Theological  Seminary  stands  by  Luther  in  this  momentous  de- 
cision.   Like  Luther,  we  put  first  and  foremost,  the  truth. 


LUTHER  AND  HENRY  VIII 

Luther  and  Henry  VIII  are  two  of  the  most  striking  figures  in 
the  early  Reformation;  and  they  died  within  the  same  twelve- 
month, both,  each  in  his  own  way,  having  made  the  fatal  breach 
with  the  Papacy.  They  were  in  very  different  ways  typical  of 
their  age,  strong  men  who  destroyed  an  old  order  of  things. 
Unlike  in  all  worldly  circumstances,  the  Augustinian  friar,  the 
son  of  a  humble  miner,  and  the  magnificent  monarch,  who  owed 
fully  as  much  to  his  brilliant  personality  as  he  did  to  his  great 
position,  had  much  in  common.  Of  all  reformers,  Luther  was 
the  most  scholastic  in  education  and  intellect;  nor  was  there  ever 
a  more  orthodox  sovereign  than  the  king  who  tore  England  from 
the  grip  of  the  Papacy.  Two  men  more  conservative  by  nature 
never  changed  the  course  of  history.  Neither  of  them  was  by 
temperament  an  innovator;  yet  when  each  set  upon  the  work  of 
reform,  no  power  on  earth  could  stay  them  in  their  purpose. 
In  both  is  displayed  much  of  the  coarseness  of  an  age,  singularly 
devoid  of  delicacy  or  sensitiveness;  yet  Henry  and  Luther  alike 
possessed  the  power  of  attracting  not  only  devotion,  but  personal 
attachment.  Neither  one  nor  the  other  was  an  extremist.  They 
both  saw  how  far  they  wished  to  go  and  resolved  to  go  no  further ; 
and  the  enthusiasm  of  others  was  not  able  to  carry  them  beyond 
the  limits  they  had  set  themselves.  Such,  then,  were  the  two 
leading  men  of  their  age  who  in  1521  appeared  as  irreconcilable 
foes,  and  twenty-six  years  later  had  earned  the  same  reputation 
as  the  breakers  of  the  power  of  the  Roman  See. 

The  three  great  manifestations  of  the  Reformation  in  Western 
Europe  had  each  its  peculiar  characteristic.  Luther's  was  a 
revolt  of  an  aristocracy  against  pope  and  emperor,  Henry's  that 
of  a  monarch,  whilst  Calvin's  was  essentially  democratic.  There 
was  little  doctrinal  and  no  political  sympathy  between  such 
men  as  Henry  and  Luther.  Protestantism  had  no  attraction  for 
the  king  of  England.  He  prided  himself  on  being,  through  his 
grandmother,  the  head  of  the  House  of  Lancaster,  which  had  ever 
been  faithful  to  the  Church;  Henry  IV  and  V  had  practically 
extirpated  Lollardy,  and  Henry  VI  was  very  near  to  canonization. 
His  training,  as  well  as  his  tradition,  inclined  him  in  the  same 

10 


II 

direction.  It  is  said  that,  as  a  younger  son,  he  had,  till  the  death 
of  his  brother  Arthur,  been  educated  for  the  Church  and  through- 
out his  life  he  was  never  without  interest  in  theology  nor  neglect- 
ful of  religious  observances.  Alike  in  Church  and  State,  he  was 
most  careful  to  have  a  show  of  legality  on  his  side.  In  his  most 
cruel  and  arbitrary  acts,  Henry  took  great  pains  to  have  the 
support  of  his  Parliament,  nor  did  he  ever  cease  to  regard  him- 
self as  a  model  of  orthodoxy  in  belief.  Unlike  his  daughter, 
Elizabeth,  he  had  none  of  that  hard  scepticism  which  regarded 
religion  as  a  valuable  card  in  the  game  of  politics.  We  may 
safely  pronounce  him  to  have  had  a  conscience,  perverted  it 
may  be,  but  still  a  conscience  which  led  him  to  believe  that  he 
was  acting  for  the  best.  As  a  ruler,  he  detested  extremists;  and 
here  the  analogy  between  him  and  Luther  is  complete.  He  had 
no  more  use  for  ultra-reformers  like  Latimer  than  Luther  had 
for  Karlstadt;  and  he  had  an  equally  strong  belief  in  the  rights 
of  the  civil  ruler  of  a  Christian  state.  The  great  difference  be- 
tween the  two  men  was  that  Luther  fought  for  a  dogmatic  prin- 
ciple, justification  by  faith  only,  and  Henry  for  a  political  theory 
of  the  proper  relation  of  Church  and  State. 

Herein  lies  the  difference  between  the  course  of  the  Henrician 
reforms  in  England  and  the  Lutheran  in  Germany.  Both  were 
the  work  of  great  men,  fighting  to  establish  different  principles. 
That  England  was  never  Lutheran  is  greatly  due  to  the  strong 
influence  of  the  great  Tudor  sovereign. 

It  must  now  be  our  task  to  consider  the  course  of  the  Refor- 
mation in  England  to  1547  and  to  show  how  Luther's  movement 
abroad  reacted  upon  it. 

Recent  events  in  this  country  have  shown  that  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race  is  singularly  slow  to  wrath.  The  words  of  Hamlet's 
famous  soliloquy  in  which  he  says,  "A  man  will  rather  bear  the 
ills  he  has  than  flee  to  others  that  he  knows  not  of,"  is  a  revela- 
tion of  the  psychology  of  men  of  English  birth.  None  have  ever 
been  more  tolerant  of  abuses,  till  they  have  become  intolerable, 
none  have  shrunk  more  from  change  till  it  has  become  inevitable; 
but  when  the  critical  moment  arises,  the  abuses  are  relentlessly 
swept  away  and  the  necessary  change  made  without  regard  to 
cost.  To  understand  the  English  Reformation,  let  me  ask  you 
to  recall  a  comparatively  recent  event,  the  revolt  of  the  American 


12 

colonies  and  the  setting  up  of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States — 
the  most  characteristically  English  event  in  the  world's  history. 
The  long  war  of  liberation  was  undertaken  with  reluctance,  con- 
ducted at  first  with  vacillation  and  divided  counsels,  and  con- 
cluded with  resolution,  leaving  behind  a  very  bitter  feeling  against 
England.  The  ideas  which  inspired  the  Americans  were  derived 
from  the  French  philosophers,  and  the  eyes  of  all  were  turned 
to  the  French  nation.  No  divided  allegiance  was  permitted; 
and  those  who  cherished  loyal  feelings  for  the  old  country  had 
to  seek  a  home  elsewhere.  What  was  the  logical  sequence  of  such 
events  and  sentiments?  Surely  one  might  have  expected  the 
destruction  of  every  memory  of  England,  a  constitution  per- 
meated with  ideals  completely  at  variance  with  that  of  the 
mother  land,  a  new  order  as  different  as  possible  from  the  old. 
Instead  of  which  the  structure  of  society  was  hardly  changed, 
the  common  law  of  England  remained  that  of  the  United  States, 
the  different  states  were  consolidated  by  having  their  rights  and 
customs  respected  in  a  wise  spirit  of  compromise.  The  revolu- 
tion was  effected;  and  then,  as  far  as  was  possible,  the  old  order 
was  resumed.  Washington  and  his  friends  retained  the  ideas 
and  even  the  prejudices  of  the  country  they  had  repudiated, 
property  was  safeguarded  by  the  ancient  methods,  law  was  ad- 
ministered as  of  yore;  and  when  their  object  was  completely 
achieved  the  English  of  the  New  World  resumed  the  life  to 
which  they  had  been  accustomed.  As  in  a  family  quarrel,  the 
mutual  hostility  between  Britain  and  the  United  States  was  due, , 
not  to  misunderstanding  one  another,  but  to  understanding  one 
another  too  well.  It  was  the  same  in  the  Civil  War  in  England 
a  century  before.  Cromwell  destroyed  an  old  order,  Washington 
founded  a  new  nation;  but  both  hated  innovation  and  as  soon 
as  possible  returned  to  the  old  ideals  of  government.  Such  was 
the  spirit  of  Henry's  reformation  in  England. 

The  remarkable  thing  about  the  House  of  Tudor  was  that  it 
was  the  only  dynasty  of  Englishmen  to  rule  England  since  the 
Conquest.  From  William  I  to  Richard  III,  the  kings  felt  that 
England  was  part  of  a  continental  realm.  The  Stuarts  were 
Gallicised  Scotchmen.  The  Hanoverians  to  the  death  of  Victoria 
were  Germans  at  heart.  It  was  not  by  chance  that  Albert  Edward, 
Prince  of  Wales,  called  himself  Edward  VII.     It  was  a  proclama- 


13 

tion  to  the  world  that  he  meant  to  rule  as  an  Englishman.  This 
was  the  source  of  the  immense  strength  of  the  Tudors.  The 
nation  felt  that,  whatever  their  faults,  the  monarchs  of  their 
house  were  native  sovereigns.  Their  birth  was  not  strictly 
legitimate,  their  title  was  doubtful;  but  they  had  the  entire 
sympathy  of  the  mass  of  the  people.  And,  to  do  them  justice, 
they  thoroughly  understood  their  subjects,  and,  as  a  rule,  antici- 
pated their  wishes.  Henry  VIII  especially,  after  the  fall  of 
Wolsey,  ruled  as  none  of  his  predecessors  had  done  as  an  abso- 
lute monarch,  yet  with  the  hearty  support  of  Parliament,  which 
sat  almost  constantly  and  endorsed  his  most  arbitrary  acts  with 
approval.  A  Greek  traveller  in  England,  in  his  reign,  noticed 
the  absolute  devotion  of  the  people  to  their  king. 

The  Church  had  been  long  loved  and  cherished  by  the  English 
people.  No  nation  had  been  less  troubled  by  heresy.  The  in- 
quisition was  practically  unknown,  nor  was  it  necessary.  Wyclif, 
the  morning  star  of  the  Reformation,  had  died  unmolested  at 
the  high  altar  of  his  parish  church.  Lollardy  had  a  comparatively 
short  life  and  no  Albigensian  or  Hussite  war  had  marked  its 
downfall.  Till  1400  no  heretic  in  England  was  legally  punish- 
able by  the  stake;  and  later,  those  who  suffered  were  few  and 
far  between.  The  holocausts,  which  made  the  later  middle  ages 
in  Europe  so  dreadful,  were  practically  unknown.  It  is  even 
possible  that  the  decay  of  Lollardy  was  due  rather  to  argument 
than  to  force.  At  any  rate,  the  course  of  Church  History  in 
England  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  and  opening  of  the  sixteenth 
century  was  singularly  uneventful;  and  when  the  Reformation 
began  on  the  continent,  those  Englishmen  who  attached  them- 
selves to  it  were  noisy  rather  than  numerous. 

Even  the  Papacy  was  no  serious  trouble  to  the  ordinary 
Englishman.  Its  power  had  been  sternly  limited  by  the  law  of 
the  land.  The  scandals  of  Rome  were  far  away,  and  it  did  not 
matter  much  to  the  ordinary  man  whether  the  pope  was  a  free 
liver  like  Alexander  Borgia,  or  whether  he  kept  a  too-worldly 
court  like  Leo  X.  He  went  to  confession  and  to  mass  and  his 
conscience  was  satisfied;  nor  did  it  trouble  him  if  he  heard  that 
a  friar  in  Germany  had  defied  the  pope.  Probably  the  bishops 
were  more  galled  by  the  papal  yoke  than  anybody.  It  is,  per- 
haps, not  too  much  to  say  that  the  chief  attitude  towards  the 


Holy  See  in  England  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century 
was  one  of  indifference. 

The  real  grievance  against  the  Church  was  that  it  meddled  in 
the  affairs  of  life  and  made  severe  demands  on  the  purses  of  the 
ordinary  citizen.  The  Church  controlled  every  department,  its 
courts  were  vexatious,  its  dues  heavy  and  constantly  seemed  to 
increase.  Mortuaries,  or  composition  for  debts  payable  to  the 
Church  after  a  person's  death,  were  a  constant  source  of  annoy- 
ance, the  ecclesiastical  courts  were  oppressive  and  tedious  in 
their  procedure;  and  nearly  every  sort  of  case  could  be  brought 
into  them.  These  and  similar  things  made  the  laity  impatient 
of  the  Church,  but  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  much  seri- 
ous bitterness.  Assuredly,  the  breach  of  Henry  with  Rome 
evolved  little  enthusiasm,  perhaps  it  was  hardly  popular.  Cer- 
tainly the  divorce  of  Catherine  was  bitterly  resented. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  first  phase  of  the  Reformation 
in  England  was  due  to  no  great  popular  demand  for  change,  that 
those  who  desired  a  radical  reformation  were  a  minority  of  dis- 
contented clergy  supported  by  the  merchants  of  the  larger  towns, 
and  that  the  mass  of  the  people  were  indifferent  and  even  apa- 
thetic, wherever  their  private  interests  were  unaffected.  This 
tends  to  explain  the  way  in  which  some  violent  changes  were 
accepted,  as  well  as  the  highly  conservative  character  of  much 
of  Henry's  policy  towards  the  Church.  When  a  rebellion  arose, 
it  was  almost  invariably  provoked  by  innovations  in  the  Church. 
We  hear  nothing  of  Protestant  revolts  and  little  of  Protestant 
mobs.  In  tracing  the  effect  of  the  Lutheran  movement  in  Eng- 
land, it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Germans  were  not  popular 
at  this  time.  The  policy  of  the  Hanseatic  league  was,  as  far 
as  possible,  to  secure  a  monopoly  of  trade  in  England  which  was 
naturally  resented  by  the  merchant  class,  who  were  most  dis- 
posed to  the  new  opinion.  This  fact  is  generally  neglected,  but 
it  goes  to  explain  some  of  the  lack  of  enthusiasm  for  the  German 
movement. 

I  shall  now  endeavor  to  trace  the  course  of  events  in  England 
during  the  critical  years  in  which  Henry  VIII  was  breaking  with 
the  Papacy. 

Before  doing  this,  I  shall  make  but  a  passing  allusion  to  the 
course   of   the   Reformation   during   the   interval   between   the 


15 

appearance  of  Luther  in  15 17  and  the  rupture  between  Henry 
VIII  and  the  Papacy.  Not  because  I  undervalue  its  importance 
— for  it  deserves  exhaustive  study — but  because  its  real  inter- 
est belongs,  in  my  opinion,  to  a  later  period,  when  the  Reforma- 
tion in  England  was  characterized  less  by  its  anti-papalism  than 
by  its  hatred  to  the  Mass.  Men  like  Frith,  Barnes,  Bilney,  and 
Tyndale  were  sowing  the  seed  for  a  crop  that  had  not  come  up 
in  Henry's  time;  and  the  king  regarded  these  doctrinal  reformers 
with  the  bitterest  hostility.  So  far,  indeed,  he  and  Luther  were 
in  agreement,  in  desiring  little  change  in  the  religion  to  which 
people  had  long  been  accustomed,  provided  their  respective  ob- 
jects were  attained.  Tyndale,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  burnt 
on  the  continent  in  1536  at  the  instigation  of  Thomas  Cromwell, 
Henry's  unscrupulous  minister,  the  very  year  in  which  the  disso- 
lution of  the  monasteries  was  in  full  progress. 

Nor  is  it  germane  to  my  purpose  to  dwell  on  the  personal 
contest  between  Henry  and  Luther,  to  enter  into  the  disputed 
question  of  the  actual  authorship  of  the  book  which  won  the 
King  of  England  the  title  of  Fidei  Defensor  or  to  recall  to  you 
the  language  of  abuse  employed  by  the  sturdy  reformer  in  answer- 
ing his  royal  opponent. 

I  would  rather  invite  you  to  consider  what  was  actually  done 
towards  reforming  the  Church  in  England  in  Luther's  lifetime 
besides  the  severance  of  all  connection  with  the  Roman  See. 
There  was  one  point  on  which  the  king  was  adamant.  He 
would  suffer  no  change  in  the  matter  on  which  the  reformers 
abroad  were  most  interested,  namely,  the  doctrine  of  the  Mass. 
On  this  subject  Henry  never  wavered,  even  when  it  was  nec- 
essary to  secure  the  support  of  the  Protestant  party  at  home 
or  their  assistance  on  the  continent.  In  the  two  official  docu- 
ments on  religion,  the  'Institution  of  a  Christen  Man'  or  'the 
Bishop's  Book',  the  result  of  the  reforming  Convocation  of  1536 
and  its  revision  known  as  the  King's  Book  or 'Necessary  Erudition' 
issued  in  the  days  of  reaction  in  1543,  the  Real  Presence  is 
strongly  insisted  upon;  and  great  care  is  made  to  explain  the 
administration  of  communion  in  one  kind  as  agreeable  to  the  tra- 
dition of  the  Universal  Church.  A  perusal  of  the  two  books  is 
convincing  that  in  general  Henry  desired  to  maintain  intact,  the 
teaching  to  which  he  and  his  people  had  been  accustomed,  pro- 


16 

vided  that  the  Papal  supremacy  was  unhesitatingly  rejected. 
Following  a  great  school  of  mediaeval  theologians,  his  theory  was 
that  the  secular  power  was  divinely  appointed  to  administer  the 
affairs  of  God's  people  and  that  the  clergy  should  be  confined  to 
their  own  province  except  when  called  upon  to  assist  the  monarch 
in  his  task  of  administration.  But  he  had  no  sympathy  with  the 
superstitions  of  which  he  accused  his  enemies,  the  monks  and 
friars.  His  religious  ideal  was  a  reasonable  Catholicism  with 
decent  and  orderly  ceremonial,  no  unedifying  rites,  and  above 
all,  free  from  foreign  interference.  We  must  judge  him  by  his 
religious  aim  rather  than  by  his  personal  character. 

It  is  an  unprofitable  but  fascinating  occupation  to  imagine 
what  might  have  happened  had  Henry  VIII  lived  to  old  age  and 
if  the  English  Reformation  had  been  guided  by  his  masterful 
will  and  tactful  knowledge  of  his  people.  It  may  be  that  he 
would  have  based  the  Church  on  the  old  Catholic  tradition,  re- 
tained the  Mass  and  abolished  all  trace  of  papal  interference. 
As  it  was,  he  succeeded  in  annihilating  the  Pope's  supremacy 
and  in  giving  the  Church  an  English  Bible  and  licensing  an  Eng- 
lish litany  and  also  in  securing  uniformity  by  insisting  on  a 
single  'use' — that  of  Sarum — throughout  the  realm.  The  great 
revolution  he  caused  by  his  ruthless  suppression  of  the  monas- 
teries anticipated  by  centuries  what  was  done  by  every  pro- 
gressive nation  in  Europe.  My  own  opinion  is  that  he  would 
have  ultimately  sought  reconciliation  with  the  Roman  See  on 
terms  far  more  stringent  than  those  agreed  upon  in  Mary's 
reign,  secured  by  a  Praemunire  Act  which  would  have  made 
interference  between  him  and  his  subjects  impossible. 

But  his  actions  had  prevented  the  continuance  of  his  policy 
after  his  strong  hand  was  removed.  He  had  degraded  the 
clergy  so  that  the  best  men  refused  to  enter  their  ranks.  The 
coarse  rapacity  of  the  dissolution  of  the  religious  houses  impov- 
erished the  education  of  the  country:  even  such  colleges  as 
Eton  and  Winchester  narrowly  escaped  spoliation.  The  bishops 
ceased  to  be  more  than  puppets  of  the  crown,  the  clergy  sunk 
lower  and  lower  in  popular  estimation.  The  Church  was  rapidly 
hastening  towards  the  unspeakable  degradation  it  reached  under 
Elizabeth.  The  old  religion  withered  under  the  blighting  policy 
of  Henry  and  fell  a  prey  to  the  extreme  reformers  of  Switzerland. 


17 

Mary  completed  its  ruin  by  identifying  the  Mass  with  the  three 
things  an  Englishman  hated  most:  disloyalty  to  the  country, 
the  Inquisition,  and  Spain. 

But  the  Henrician  ideal  of  a  church  Catholic  but  anti-papal 
never  died  in  the  breasts  of  Englishmen.  It  has  often  slumbered 
but  has  always  awakened.  It  burst  into  life  under  Laud  only  to 
be  crushed  in  the  Rebellion.  It  rose  again  in  the  Restoration, 
though  it  was  well  nigh  stifled  in  the  filthy  atmosphere  of  the 
reign  of  Charles  II.  It  revived  once  more  during  the  Revolution 
and  the  days  of  Anne.  Not  even  the  lethargy  of  the  regime  of 
the  Georges  could  quench  the  smouldering  flame,  which  burst 
up  in  the  Oxford  Movement,  and  still  burns  both  in  England 
and  America.  But  it  is  a  high  ideal  and  a  desperate  hope  which 
only  strong  men  can  uphold.  We  see  constantly  men  giving 
up  the  struggle  in  order  to  sink  into  mental  apathy  and  deserved 
oblivion  in  the  arms  of  Rome.  Yet  to  understand  Anglicanism, 
it  must  be  taken  into  account  that  there  is  an  unquenchable 
spirit  of  Catholicism  continued  with  a  determination  never  to 
submit  to  the  dictation  of  the  Roman  See.  This  ought  not  to 
separate  it  from  other  Protestant  bodies;  for  if  it  is  true  to  this 
spirit,  its  discipline  and  its  ceremonies  are  not  Romanizing.  The 
Roman  clergy  fully  recognize  this;  and  are  more  opposed  to 
genuine  Anglicanism  than  anything  else.  The  real  source  of 
danger  is  that  Anglican  priests  should  regard  Rome  as  the  true 
Church,  and  themselves  as  her  imitators  as  far  as  they  dare. 
To  unite  with  the  Roman  Church  would  mean  for  Anglicanism 
loss  of  honor  and  liberty  and  spiritual  death.  Her  peculiar  duty 
is  to  raise  aloft  the  banner  of  true  Catholicism  and  join  with 
the  reformed  churches  in  warfare  with  the  common  enemy  oi 
vital  Christianity.  As  Luther  would  have  said,  "She  can  none 
other." 


LUTHER  AND  THE  UNFINISHED 
REFORMATION 

Martin  Luther  was  an  extraordinary  man  and  his  career  was 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  history.  Born  of  peasant  stock. 
never  holding  public  office,  passing  his  entire  active  career  as 
a  mere  preacher  and  professor  of  theology  in  a  small  and  out-of- 
the-way  town,  he  yet  dominated  half  the  western  world  and  the 
whole  of  it  is  changed  because  he  lived.  His  interests  were  almost 
exclusively  religious.  With  political  and  economic  and  social 
affairs  he  concerned  himself  little,  and  yet  the  whole  of  Christen- 
dom, Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant,  has  been  profoundly 
affected,  politically,  economically  and  socially,  as  well  as  reli- 
giously, by  what  he  did. 

I  am  to  speak  of  Luther  and  the  Unfinished  Reformation,  but 
first  let  me  speak  of  some  of  his  achievements,  some  of  the  things 
he  did  that  have  helped  to  make  our  modern  world  what  it  is. 

First  of  all,  he  broke  the  control  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
in  western  and  northern  Europe.  He  did  not  himself  leave  the 
Church  on  account  of  intellectual  difficulties — he  was  not  a 
modern  in  his  thinking,  nor  on  account  of  the  moral  corruption 
within  the  old  communion — morality  was  always  secondary, 
'not  primary,  with  him.  He  went  out  wholly  on  religious  grounds, 
because  he  found  no  room  within  the  Papal  Church  for  his 
gospel  of  salvation  through  trust  in  the  forgiving  love  of  God  in 
Christ,  a  gospel  that  was  the  most  precious  and  the  most  impor- 
tant thing  in  the  world  to  him.  Others  were  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  Church  on  other  grounds;  probably  few  shared  his  ex- 
perience and  felt  his  difficulty.  For  generations  dissatisfaction 
had  been  growing.  The  old  institution  was  criticized  for  all  sorts 
of  reasons:  religious,  moral,  intellectual,  political,  and  financial. 
Many  were  discontented  with  it,  and  would  have  been  glad  to 
leave  it  if  they  dared.  But  they  knew  no  other  way  of  salvation, 
and,  though  they  might  be  indifferent  or  even  hostile  to  the 
Roman  Church,  they  preferred  to  remain  on  good  terms  with  it, 
or  at  least  to  make  their  peace  with  it  before  they  died,  and  to 
receive  the  last  sacrament  from  the  hands  of  its  priesthood. 

18 


19 

What  Luther  did  was  to  convince  a  large  multitude  in  western 
and  northern  Europe  that  salvation  was  possible  outside  the 
Roman  Church  and  apart  from  its  ministers  and  sacraments. 
This  conviction  did  not  drive  men  out  of  the  church  of  their 
fathers,  but  it  made  it  possible  for  them  to  go  out  if  they  wished 
on  other  grounds  to  do  so.  And  when  Luther  himself  turned 
his  back  upon  the  old  communion,  many  gladly  followed  him  and 
the  great  evangelical  movement  was  fairly  under  way. 

The  significant  fact  in  the  situation  is  that  this  meant  the 
growth  of  religious  and  intellectual  liberty.  Whether  consciously 
or  unconsciously,  whether  by  intention  or  not,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  was  the  great  foe  of  liberty.  An  absolute  and 
infallible  authority,  competent  to  speak  on  every  subject,  scien- 
tific and  political  as  well  as  moral  and  religious — it  was  impos- 
sible for  human  liberty  to  have  free  course  under  the  rule  of  such 
an  institution.  Luther  himself  might  be  narrow  and  intolerant 
enough,  and  his  work  might  result,  as  it  did,  in  the  setting  up  of 
new  authorities  even  more  oppressive  than  the  old;  but  in  the 
conflict  of  the  sects,  Protestant  with  Catholic,  and  Protestant 
with  Protestant,  in  the  clash  of  rival  infallibilities,  respect  for  all 
infallibility  was  undermined,  and  liberty,  both  religious  and 
intellectual,  made  its  gradual  way  throughout  our  modern  world. 

Another  great  achievement  of  Luther's  was  his  reinterpreta- 
tion  of  the  Christian  life.  According  to  Catholic  doctrine,  the 
Christian  life  is  the  life  of  a  candidate  for  salvation.  Salvation 
itself  is  wholly  future  and  is  to  be  enjoyed  only  in  another  world 
beyond  the  grave.  According  to  Luther,  the_  Christian,  life- -is. 
the  life  of  a  man  already  saved,  and  saved  as  truly  as  he  will 
ever  be.  When  in  the  monastery  at  Erfurt  he  escaped  from  his 
fear  of  the  divine  wrath  by  simply  trusting  the  forgiving  love  of 
God  in  Christ,  he  interpreted  his  new  peace  as  itself  salvation 
and  not  simply  the  promise  of  salvation.  In  other  words,  he 
identified  salvation  with  a  state  of  mind,  the  state  of  mind  of 
the  man  who  trusts  a  loving  father  and  has  ceased  to  fear  the 
wrath  of  an  angry  deity. 

Freedom  from  religious  fear,  the  fear  of  God's  vengeance, 
might  come  equally  well  from  atheism — the  man  who  does  not 
believe  there  is  a  god  will  not  be  troubled  by  fear  of  the  divine 
wrath.    And,  historically,  it  is  of  great  moment  that  Luther  in 


20 

freeing  men  from  religious  fear  did  just  what  the  loss  of  religious 
faith  has  done  for  many  in  modern  times.  But  the  important 
thing  is  that  he  released  men  from  fear,  not  by  the  road  of  atheism 
but  by  the  road  of  faith.  He  did  not  put  irreligion  in  place  of 
religion,  but  one  form  of  religion  in  place  of  another;  a  religion 
of  trust  and  confidence  he  substituted  for  a  religion  of  fear  and 
anxiety.  Religion,  he  felt,  had  too  long  been  prostituted  to  base 
ends.  Made  the  means  of  winning  favor  with  God,  and  placating 
the  divine  wrath,  it  had  been  degraded  from  its  high  estate,  as 
friendship  is  degraded  when  it  is  exploited  for  one's  personal 
advantage.  Religion  means,  not  rites  and  ceremonies  and  sacra- 
ments, but  peace  with  God  and  confidence  in  his  forgiving  love; 
and  the  freedom  from  fear  which  it  brings  has  this  great  advan- 
tage over  the  freedom  born  of  unbelief  that  it  means  freedom, 
not  simply  from  religious  fear  but  from  all  fear  of  whatever  kind. 
Nothing  can  do  the  Christian  harm,  for  he  is  in  God's  hands  and 
the  world  too  is  God's,  and  all  things  work  together  for  good  to 
them  that  trust  him.  As  Luther  says  in  his  tract  on  "The  Liberty 
of  a  Christian  Man,"  one  of  the  world's  great  religious  classics, 
"Every  Christian  is  by  faith  so  exalted  above  all  things  that,  in 
spiritual  power,  he  is  completely  lord  of  all  things,  so  that  noth- 
ing whatever  can  do  him  any  hurt;  yea,  all  things  are  subject 
to  him,  and  are  compelled  to  be  subservient  to  his  salvation." 

Thus  lord  over  all  things  by  faith,  the  Christian  need  give  no 
farther  thought  to  his  own  welfare  and  his  own  salvation,  but 
4.an  devote  himself  wholly  to  the  good  of  others.  Out  of  grati- 
tude to  a  loving  and  gracious  father,  he  cannot  help  striving 
to  do  that  father's  will,  and  that  means  he  cannot  help  laboring 
for  the  welfare  of  his  fellows,  for  "What  is  it  to  serve  God  and  do 
his  will?"  Luther  cries  in  one  of  his  sermons,  "It  is  nothing  else 
than  to  show  mercy  to  one's  neighbor.  For  it  is  our  neighbor 
needs  our  service;   God  in  heaven  needs  it  not." 

What  a  liberating  word  was  that!  No  longer  bound  to  render 
God  service  by  religious  rite  and  ceremony  and  sacrament,  the 
Christian  is  free  to  give  himself  undividedly  to  the  good  of  his 
neighbor.  Religion,  as  Luther  knew  it,  was  keeping  Christians 
from  their  true  service — the  service  of  their  fellowmen.  Instead 
of  an  inspiration,  it  seemed  to  him  a  bondage.  As  he  looked 
back  upon  his  own  life  in  the  monastery  he  saw  that  it  was  his 


21 

fear  of  God  and  his  eagerness  to  placate  the  divine  wrath  and 
win  his  own  salvation  that  had  kept  him  from  doing  what  it  was 
his  business  to  do.  And,  as  all  great  geniuses  are  in  the  habit 
of  doing,  he  universalized  his  own  experience  and  concluded  that, 
if  once  freed  from  fear  of  the  divine  wrath  through  trust  in  the 
divine  love,  Christians  would  be  quick  to  give  themselves  to  the 
service  of  their  fellows.  Thus  Christian  liberty  was  not  an  end 
in  itself — Luther  had  no  interest  in  liberty  as  an  end  in  itself— 
it  was  simply  the  setting  men  free  for  their  true  business  in  life. 
Not  justification  by  faith  is  the  central  principle  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation,  as  is  commonly  said,  but  freedom  for  human  ser-/ 
vice.  If  "the  Christian  man  is  the  most  free  lord  of  all  and  sub- 
ject to  no  one,"  he  is  also  "the  most  dutiful  servant  of  all  and  sub- 
ject to  everyone,"  as  Luther  declares  at  the  very  beginning  of  his 
tract  on  Christian  liberty. 

And  how  thorough-going  he  was  in  his  interpretation  of  the 
Christian  life,  as  nothing  else  than  labor  for  the  good  of  others, 
is  shown  by  the  way  he  brought  all  the  virtues — self-control, 
temperance,  and  the  rest — into  subservience  to  the  one  great  end. 
Thus  he  says: 

"Man  does  not  live  for  himself  alone  in  this  mortal  body,  in 
order  to  work  on  its  account,  but  also  for  all  men  on  earth,  nay 
he  lives  only  for  others  and  not  for  himself.  For  it  is  to  this  end 
that  he  brings  his  own  body  into  subjection  that  he  may  be  able 
to  serve  others  more  sincerely  and  more  freely.  It  is  the  part  of 
a  Christian  to  take  care  of  his  own  body  for  the  very  purpose  that 
by  its  soundness  and  well-being  he  may  be  able  to  labor  and  to 
acquire  and  preserve  property  for  the  aid  of  those  who  are  in 
want,  that  thus  the  stronger  member  may  serve  the  weaker  and 
we  may  be  children  of  God,  thoughtful  and  busy  one  for  another, 
bearing  one  another's  burdens  and  so  fulfilling  the  law  of  Christ." 

Another  achievement  of  Luther's  was  his  new  estimate  of 
human  callings.  This  was  the  natural  result  of  his  reinterpreta- 
tion  of  the  Christian  life.  Hitherto  the  worth  of  an  occupation 
had  been  measured  by  its  bearing  on  the  future;  now  it  was 
measured  by  its  bearing  on  the  present.  Not  that  occupation 
is  highest  and  holiest  which  best  promotes  one's  personal  salva- 
tion, but  that  wherein  one  can  best  serve  one's  fellows  and  further 


22 

the  common  good.  A  new  criterion  was  thus  given  by  which 
to  judge  all  forms  of  life  and  conduct. 

"It  is  not  necessary,"  Luther  says,  "that  he  who  would  serve 
God  should  undertake  some  special  kind  of  an  occupation  as  the 
monks  have  done.  Let  him  remain  in  his  calling  and  do  what 
his  master  or  his  office  and  position  require.  That  is  to  serve 
God  truly."  "It  looks  like  a  great  thing  when  a  monk  renounces 
everything  and  goes  into  a  cloister,  carries  on  a  life  of  asceticism, 
fasts,  watches,  prays,  etc.  On  the  other  hand,  it  looks  like  a 
small  thing  when  a  maid  cooks  and  cleans  and  does  other  house- 
work. But  because  God's  command  is  there,  even  such  a  small 
work  must  be  praised  as  a  service  of  God  far  surpassing  the 
holiness  and  asceticism  of  all  monks  and  nuns.  For  here  there  is 
no  command  of  God.  But  there  God's  command  is  fulfilled,  that 
one  should  honor  father  and  mother  and  help  in  the  care  of  the 
home." 

This  meant  the  downfall  of  monasticism  within  Protestantism 
(to  say  nothing  of  its  transformation  within  Catholicism)  and 
the  consequent  setting  free  of  untold  stores  of  talent  and  energy 
for  the  common  work  of  the  world.  It  meant  also  the  recognition 
of  mendicancy  as  a  vice  instead  of  a  virtue,  and  of  industry  and 
thrift  as  Christian  duties.  The  secular  dethroned  the  religious 
from  its  place  of  supreme  honor;  clerical  leadership  gave  way  to 
lay  leadership  in  the  affairs  of  the  world;  and  culture  ceased  to 
be  predominantly  theological. 

Closely  connected  with  Luther's  re-interpretation  of  the  Chris- 
tian life  and  his  revaluation  of  human  callings  was  the  new  esti- 
mate he  put  upon  the  present  world.  According  to  orthodox 
Catholic  tradition,  this  world  is  a  place  of  probation  for  the 
world  to  come  and  has  real  value  only  in  relation  thereto. 
He  who  would  share  the  glories  of  the  future  must  eschew  so 
far  as  possible  the  enjoyments  of  the  present.  This  world  at 
best  is  temporary  and  must  be  despised — at  worst  it  is  evil  and 
must  be  abandoned. 

According  to  Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  the  present  world  is 
the  home  of  saved  children  of  God  and  as  such  it  has  a  worth 
and  dignity  of  its  own.  It  is  good,  for  all  created  things  are  good 
and  were  made  to  be  used.  Many  of  the  implications  of  this 
changed  estimate  of  the  world  might  be  overlooked  by  Luther 


23 

himself,  and  for  generations  might  be  hidden  from  his  followers, 
who  were  still  largely  Catholic  in  their  attitude  toward  every- 
thing except  the  Pope  and  the  Papal  Church.  But  it  meant, 
in  effect,  freedom  for  economic  development,  and  religious  sanc- 
tion for  the  enormous  industrial  and  commercial  expansion  of 
modern  times.  It  meant  also  a  charter  of  liberty  for  modern 
science.  Luther  himself  cared  little  for  science,  and  most  of  the 
Reformers  and  the  churches  of  the  Reformation  looked  askance 
at  it  and  feared  the  results  of  scientific  experiment  and  discovery. 
But,  in  spite  of  this,  the  new  estimate  of  the  present  world,  im- 
plicit when  not  explicit  in  the  Reformation,  made  it  legitimate 
even  for  religious  men  to  be  interested  in  the  world,  and  to  be 
interested  in  it  no  longer,  as  for  centuries  past,  because  the  study 
of  it  contributed  to  religious  ends,  but  because  it  had  practical 
value  for  man's  life,  or  satisfied  his  natural  longing  to  know. 
Roger  Bacon  was  obliged  to  apologize  for  his  scientific  studies 
and  to  show  that  they  helped  the  soul  to  heaven.  No  scientist 
today,  however  religious  he  may  be,  is  obliged  to  do  anything 
of  the  kind.  Our  modern  science,  like  our  modern  economic 
development,  is  the  direct  fruit,  not  of  the  Protestant  Reforma- 
tion, but  of  other  forces  older  and  younger  than  it;  but  the 
Reformation  has  done  much  to  promote  them  both,  in  removing 
the  inhibitions  incident  to  the  old  religious  estimate  of  the 
present  world. 

Thus,  whether  for  better  or  for  worse,  our  modern  world  has 
been  profoundly  affected  by  the  work  of  Luther.  Breaking  the 
control  of  the  Roman  Church,  reinterpreting  the  Christian  life, 
and  giving  Protestant  Christendom,  and  in  no  small  degree 
Catholic  Christendom  as  well,  a  new  estimate  of  human  callings 
and  of  the  present  world,  he  was  one  of  those,  in  spite  of  all  his 
obscurantism  and  mediaevalism,  who  did  most  to  make  the  life 
of  Europe  and  America  what  it  is. 

I  have  been  speaking  thus  far  of  Luther's  achievements,  but 
my  subject  is  Luther  and  the  Unfinished  Reformation,  and  I 
wish  before  I  close  to  speak  briefly  of  certain  things  that  were 
left  undone  and  that  Protestantism  needs  now  to  do. 

For  one  thing,  human  liberty,  which  the  Reformation  seemed 
most  explicitly  to  promise,  is  still  far  from  realization.     When 


24 

the  exigencies  of  the  situation  changed  Luther  from  a  radical 
to  a  conservative;  when,  face  to  face  with  a  religious  situation 
not  unlike  the  political  situation  that  exists  today  in  Russia, 
he  had  recourse  to  the  authority  of  Scripture  and  creed  that 
his  movement  might  not  be  destroyed  by  the  excesses  of  evangeli- 
cal enthusiasts,  he  started  Protestantism  upon  a  career  of  intoler- 
ant orthodoxy  that  has  made  the  emancipation  of  the  human 
spirit  very  difficult  and  very  slow.  And  the  religious  and  in- 
tellectual freedom  some  of  us  rejoice  in  is  still  wanting  over  large 
areas  of  Protestant  Christendom. 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  the  modern  situation.  For  political 
liberty,  the  Reformation  did  still  less  than  for  religious  and  intel- 
lectual liberty.  For  the  freedom  of  the  nations,  for  the  right  to  live 
their  own  lives  and  to  develop  in  their  own  separate  ways,  the 
Reformation  did  much.  The  growth  of  nationalism  had  already 
begun  before  Luther  appeared  upon  the  scene,  but  in  breaking 
the  power  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  taking  religious  authority 
from  an  international  institution  and  putting  it  into  the  hands 
of  the  civil  rulers,  and  in  looking  to  the  princes  to  support  his 
movement  against  the  Pope,  he  vastly  enhanced  the  power  and 
independence  of  the  nations.  But  whether  this  should  mean 
freedom  for  the  individual,  or  his  entire  repression  by  the  State, 
depended  upon  circumstances.  The  Protestant  Reformation  is 
just  as  responsible  for  the  autocracy  of  Germany  as  for  the 
democracy  of  America,  and  no  more  so.  It  has  been  our  habit 
in  the  past  glibly  to  claim  that  when  Luther  gave  men  religious 
freedom  he  gave  them  political  freedom  as  well ;  but  the  modern 
situation  in  Germany,  where  the  individual  has  long  been  intel- 
lectually and  religiously  free  in  an  unusual  degree,  has  given  us 
pause.  We  see  that  the  one  kind  of  freedom,  while  it  may  seem 
logically  to  imply  the  other,  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  it. 
Whether  national  liberty  shall  mean  democracy  or  autocracy 
depends,  not  on  a  theory  about  the  freedom  of  the  Christian  man, 
but  upon  the  particular  situation  in  which  a  nation  finds  itself. 
If  favorably  placed,  if  girdled  by  the  sea,  or  separated  by  thou- 
sands of  miles  of  ocean  from  the  nearest  great  power,  it  may  offer 
fertile  ground  for  democracy  to  grow  in ;  but,  encompassed  close 
about  by  nations  whom  it  regards  as  possible  enemies,  it  may 
think  itself  forced  to  seek  protection  in  autocracy.    Our  President 


25 

has  said  we  are  fighting  to  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy,  and 
we  all  know  that  democracy  cannot  easily  flourish  in  an  unsafe 
world.  Luther  gave  men  religious  freedom  by  releasing  them 
from  religious  fear.  If  political  freedom  is  to  prevail,  another 
reformation   is  needed  to  release  them  from  national  fear. 

Similarly,  in  the  economic  realm.  As  I  have  already  said,  the 
Reformation  opened  the  door  for  economic  development  on  a 
large  scale,  but  whether  that  shall  mean  economic  freedom  for 
the  individual  depends  on  circumstances.  It  was  believed  by 
the  peasants  of  Germany  that  Luther's  gospel  promised  them 
emancipation,  and  they  set  to  work  to  compass  an  improvement 
in  their  lot,  confidently  expecting  Luther's  support.  He  did  urge 
the  princes  to  accede  to  their  demands,  but  when  some  delayed 
and  others  refused,  the  peasants  took  up  arms  and  attempted  to 
conquer  what  they  wished  by  force.  And  then,  alarmed  for  the 
safety  of  his  cause,  fearing  that  civil  war  would  ruin  the  evangeli- 
cal movement  and  make  it  an  easy  prey  to  the  Pope  and  the 
Catholic  powers,  Luther  turned  upon  the  peasants,  denounced 
them  in  unmeasured  terms,  and  called  upon  the  princes  to  crush 
them  without  mercy.  Thus  the  growth  of  economic  freedom, 
which  might  have  been  expected  to  result  from  the  Reformation, 
was  checked  and  retarded  by  fear.  Over  and  over  again  fear 
of  class  for  class,  or  of  competitor  for  competitor,  has  had  a 
like  effect;  and  we  still  stand  in  need  of  the  reformer  who  shall 
do  for  economic  liberty  what  Luther  did  for  religious  liberty. 

Another  unfinished  task  of  the  Reformation  is  to  substitute 
some  more  worthy  and  equally  compelling  motive  for  the  old 
motive  of  personal  salvation.  When  Luther  released  men  from 
the  necessity  of  working  for  their  own  salvation,  he  thought  he 
had  set  them  free  to  labor  for  the  good  of  others.  But,  instead, 
he  set  all  too  many  free  to  devote  themselves  wholly  to  the 
amassing  of  wealth  or  the  securing  of  creature  comforts.  It  may 
be  unlovely  to  see  a  man  selfishly  spending  his  life  in  trying  to 
save  his  own  soul;  but  it  is  far  more  unlovely  to  see  him  selfishly 
spending  it  in  the  pursuit  of  mere  material  goods.  There  is  at 
least  a  measure  of  idealism  in  the  former  that  is  wholly  lacking 
in  the  latter.  And  it  may  fairly  be  questioned  whether  our 
boasted  Protestant  civilization,  with  its  tremendous  economic 
progress  and  its  blatant  materialism,  is  after  all  so  great  an  ad- 


26 

vance  upon   the  civilization  of  the  Middle  Ages,  with  all  its 
poverty  and  squalor  and  discomfort. 

At  any  rate,  having  set  men  free  from  the  old  fear  of  divine 
wrath,  Protestantism  is  bound  to  give  them  something  better 
to  take  its  place,  that  freedom  may  be  not  a  curse,  but  a  blessing 
to  the  world.  It  is  our  duty  not  to  go  on  talking  about  liberty 
as  if  that  were  the  whole  of  Protestantism,  but  to  recognize 
that  liberty  has  worth  only  as  it  is  liberty  for  service.  It  is  our 
duty  to  put  service,  not  at  the  circumference  of  Protestant  doc- 
trine, but  at  the  very  center  of  it.  Protestantism  needs  to  work 
out  something  like  a  technique  of  social  service — less  mechanical, 
but  as  carefully  thought  over  and  labored  over  as  the  Catholic 
technique  of  personal  salvation— that  Christians  may  not  be 
left  with  the  mere  vague  desire  to  serve,  and  fall  into  the  un- 
wholesome habit  of  thinking  the  desire  itself  a  virtue;  but  that 
they  may  be  taught  how  to  put  their  time  and  their  talents  and 
their  occupations  to  the  best  Christian  use. 

And,  finally,  what  Protestantism  must  do  for  the  individual 
it  must  do  also  for  the  nation.  In  setting  the  nations  free  from 
Catholic  control,  and  in  substituting  national  for  international 
religion,  Luther  opened  the  door  wide  for  war.  In  the  Middle 
Ages  the  Roman  Church  made  for  peace  among  the  nations.  To 
be  sure,  it  sometimes  fomented  religious  conflict  by  its  enmity 
to  heretics  and  infidels.  But  in  condemning  wars  of  aggression 
and  spoliation,  in  establishing  the  truce  of  God,  and  in  striving 
to  moderate  national  passions  and  mediate  national  quarrels,  it 
did  much,  on  the  whole,  to  hinder  war.  Having  destroyed  the 
old  ecclesiastical  control,  Protestantism  is  bound  to  put  something 
better  in  its  place;  having  given  the  world  national  freedom,  it  is 
bound  to  give  the  world  international  brotherhood.  The  most 
patent  and  pressing  unfinished  task  of  the  Reformation  is  the 
Christianizing  of  our  international  relationships.  In  the  long 
run,  Protestantism  must  stand  or  fall  by  this  test:  Is  it  able — or 
is  it  not  able — to  give  to  men  and  nations  a  principle  of  conduct 
which  shall  make  the  old  ecclesiastical  control  unnecessary? 
Protestantism  can  finally  justify  itself  before  the  bar  of  history, 
not  by  setting  the  world  free  merely,  but  by  filling  the  world  with 
the  spirit,  and  not  simply  with  the  spirit,  but  with  the  practice  of 
mutual  sympathy  and  service,  man  for  man,  and  nation  for  nation. 


notes  (above  p.  5L) 

1  Professor  Aloys  Schulte,  while  head  of  the  Royal  Prussian  Historical 
Institute  in  Rome,  was  allowed  free  use  of  the  records  of  the  Vatican  in  pre- 
paring his  epoch-making  investigation  of  the  operations  of  the  South  German 
bankers,  the  Fuggers,  who  were  for  a  generation  dominant  in  financing  the 
Papacy.  The  two  volumes  are  entitled  Die  Fugger  in  Rom,  14Q5-1523.  Mil 
Studien  zur  Geschichte  des  kirchlichen  Finanzwese?is  jener  Zeit  (Leipzig,  1904). 

2  See  the  bull  of  March  31,  1515  (Schulte  II,  p.  135). 

3  Schulte  II,  pp.  108,  I43f.,  I77f.;  see  also  H.  Schrors,  Zeitschrift  fur 
katholische  TheologL,  Jahrgang  XXXI,  Innsbruck,  1907,  p.  287. 

4  Archbishop  Albrecht  was  very  discontented  with  the  high  cost  of  market- 
ing the  indulgence  through  the  Dominican  Tetzel  and  other  agents.  It  is 
asserted  that  Tetzel  and  his  subordinates  received  over  three  hundred  florins 
a  month  for  their  services  (Schulte  I,  150).  The  late  Professor  Brieger  of 
Leipzig  has  pointed  out  that  if  Tetzel  and  his  subordinates  worked  for  only 
a  twelvemonth  at  this  rate,  the  cost  of  marketing  would  be  at  least  3,600 
florins,  whereas  the  net  yield  of  this  indulgence  in  the  archdiocese  of  Magde- 
burg "in  diver  sis  annis"  was  apparently  only  5,149  florins;  and  this  sum  had 
to  be  divided  equally  between  the  archbishop  and  the  pope.  (Theodor  Brieger, 
Die  neuestcn  Ablass-Studien,  Preussische  Jahrbiicher,  vol.  cxvi,  1904,  p.  421 
note;  see  also  H.  Grisar,  S.  J.,  Luther,  Authorized  translation  by  E.  M.  Lamond, 
vol.  i.  London,  1913,  p.  353.)  Still  more  recent  investigations  show  that  in 
the  case  of  the  sale  held  in  the  church  of  St.  Bartholomew  in  Frankfurt  the 
gross  proceeds  up  to  the  fourth  of  August,  151 7,  were  in  round  figures  48  florins, 
indicating  sales  of  192  indulgences  at  one  quarter  of  a  florin  apiece:  but  that 
all  of  the  48  florins  was  used  up  in  fees  and  expenses  except  a  little  over  three 
florins  (F.  Herrmann,  Archiv  fur  Reformationsgeschichte,  vol  vi,  no.  4,  Leipzig, 
1909,  pp.  362  and  372). 

6  H.  Boehmer,  Luther  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Research,  New  York,  1916, 
pp.  130-134- 


27 


PHOTOMOUNT 

FAMPHLET  BINDER 


Wroufoctured  by 

;  GAVLORD  BROS.  Inc. 

Syracuse,  N.Y. 

Stockton,  Calif. 


BW1838.U58 

Three  addresses  delivered  in  the  chapel 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


